For those who want to ban all guns, watch this video....

[russwest0]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSvj8F_Br4M

The civilians are literally crouching around trying not to be murdered by their own government because they have no means of defending themselves with a gun since all guns are banned.

[JohnFreeman]

Yeah they need guns like the Syrians :facepalm

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/online/2014/1/24/1390581956343/A-street-in-Homs-Syria-in-001.jpg

[Fudge]

I'm on my 2nd flap of coke right now, and I wanna load up on every gat I could possibly get my hands on. :oldlol: Don't f*ck with me.

[9erempiree]

only idiots want to ban guns.:facepalm

[tomtucker]

yeah, guns are the answer to all problems..............btw, the police could easily have shot them all, they did not ! why ? probably because they in fact were unarmed..........what do y

[JohnFreeman]

[QUOTE=tomtucker]yeah, guns are the answer to all problems..............btw, the police could easily have shot them all, they did not ! why ? probably because they in fact were unarmed..........what do y

[tomtucker]

i guess so :D

[MMM]

I've never seen anyone say ban all guns. Placing restrictions on some guns doesn't mean that the Government is coming for all guns. I think in Canada we have a very solid gun culture despite heavy restrictions in comparison to the US. So making a few adjustments isn't going to change America drastically.

[JohnFreeman]

I've never seen anyone say ban all guns. Placing restrictions on some guns doesn't mean that the Government is coming for all guns. I think in Canada we have a very solid gun culture despite heavy restrictions in comparison to the US. So making a few adjustments isn't going to change America drastically.
Australia has a gun ban, unless you have a licence which takes forever

[pauk]

Sorry, but it doesnt really look like they are trying not to be murdered.... more like the opposite....

[Random_Guy]

Police don't even have guns in Ireland.
police dont have guns here in taiwan too. and trust me its a joke. Police SHOULD have guns, we have civilians here hitting cops just because the cops pissed them off by wanting to stop them from speeding

[Trentknicks]

Use as many bullshit examples and skew the context of the argument all you like, but if guns made people safer the USA would be the safest country in the world.

[BrownEye007]

Use as many bullshit examples and skew the context of the argument all you like, but if guns made people safer the USA would be the safest country in the world.
:facepalm Using that logic if guns don't make people safer then the U.S. would be the least safe country in the world. Are you trying to say that the U.S. is the most dangerous country in the world to be in?

[gts]

Wondering about the wisdom of wearing a bright orange plastic helmet when somebody is shooting at you...

[Scoooter]

It would probably be nice if we could get rid of every gun in existence all at once, but short of that let's not pretend this issue has a simple, easy answer.

Much less a simple, easy answer that originates on ISH.

[Dresta]

Use as many bullshit examples and skew the context of the argument all you like, but if guns made people safer the USA would be the safest country in the world.
Only if there were no other variables involved when it comes to the issue of safety. Really, what an idiotic thing to say :facepalm .

I laugh at people who would so easily hand over their right to gun ownership, just because we have had a reasonable period of peace, comfort prosperity; all of a sudden things are so safe and comfortable that some shootings get the whole nation leaking tears over such insignificant bollocks. And then these same morons also think this period of human history lives in a bubble: it has conquered all, we are free for eternity! all that matters is making all things as safe as humanly possible! Events won't ever take a turn for the worse, when an armed populace most certainly will be needed, and history is just rammed with examples of unending prosperity and eternal peace.

:rolleyes:

[32jazz]

I've never seen anyone say ban all guns. Placing restrictions on some guns doesn't mean that the Government is coming for all guns. I think in Canada we have a very solid gun culture despite heavy restrictions in comparison to the US. So making a few adjustments isn't going to change America drastically.


And that's the reason you can't have a serious conversation with gun nuts. I own 4 guns & have no issue with background checks, tests or other restrictions.
But to suggest this means I am a 'gun grabber' or want to ban guns .

[Marlo_Stanfield]

in germany we have guns banned and you can only have one with a license and even then cant carry it around with you.
440 people get shot here every year.
30000 in America
unbann all gunns doe. survival of the fittest doe
:facepalm :facepalm

[KevinNYC]

Most Western Democracies regulate guns, far more than the US does. They haven't turned into police states. The example of Saddam Hussein's Iraq where most every family had a gun, including millions of AK-47s, show that guns alone do not prevent a police state.

The issue is more complicated than guns prevent tyranny. Or gun control laws lead to tyranny.

[TonyMontana]

Yeah bro lets ban guns....oh except for the oh so righteous government. We'll let them keep their guns.... because they definetly don't do anything shady....

The point of guns in the United States is that so a tyrannical government cannot oppress it's citizens. Do you anti-gun morons even know why and how this country was created?

[G-train]

Australia has a gun ban, unless you have a licence which takes forever

In Australia you book in for a gun safety class which are held all the time, you then fill out the application and send it off, and have your licence 3-4 weeks later.
Unless of course you have convictions/reasons to not be granted one, which is basically just criminals/mentally ill.

[russwest0]

Only if there were no other variables involved when it comes to the issue of safety. Really, what an idiotic thing to say :facepalm .

I laugh at people who would so easily hand over their right to gun ownership, just because we have had a reasonable period of peace, comfort prosperity; all of a sudden things are so safe and comfortable that some shootings get the whole nation leaking tears over such insignificant bollocks. And then these same morons also think this period of human history lives in a bubble: it has conquered all, we are free for eternity! all that matters is making all things as safe as humanly possible! Events won't ever take a turn for the worse, when an armed populace most certainly will be needed, and history is just rammed with examples of unending prosperity and eternal peace.

:rolleyes:

:applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:

[IamRAMBO24]

Only if there were no other variables involved when it comes to the issue of safety. Really, what an idiotic thing to say :facepalm .

I laugh at people who would so easily hand over their right to gun ownership, just because we have had a reasonable period of peace, comfort prosperity; all of a sudden things are so safe and comfortable that some shootings get the whole nation leaking tears over such insignificant bollocks. And then these same morons also think this period of human history lives in a bubble: it has conquered all, we are free for eternity! all that matters is making all things as safe as humanly possible! Events won't ever take a turn for the worse, when an armed populace most certainly will be needed, and history is just rammed with examples of unending prosperity and eternal peace.

:rolleyes:

I think many have a misconception of guns, has failed to understand the need for them as a form of personal protection, and is erroneously equating them to insanity and violence.

[The Iron Fist]

Only if there were no other variables involved when it comes to the issue of safety. Really, what an idiotic thing to say :facepalm .

I laugh at people who would so easily hand over their right to gun ownership, just because we have had a reasonable period of peace, comfort prosperity; all of a sudden things are so safe and comfortable that some shootings get the whole nation leaking tears over such insignificant bollocks. And then these same morons also think this period of human history lives in a bubble: it has conquered all, we are free for eternity! all that matters is making all things as safe as humanly possible! Events won't ever take a turn for the worse, when an armed populace most certainly will be needed, and history is just rammed with examples of unending prosperity and eternal peace.

:rolleyes:

They're ******* who would instantly get on their knees and die.

[travelingman]

2nd amendment nuts are fun to mess with. When they argue that not a single gun should be placed under restriction (a specialized group of 2nd amendment nuts, that is) by the government, I like to go off the deep end and say that they're sell-outs to government control for not being activists for the legalization of all *arms* and only focusing on *guns*. I take a parallel and equally nutty stance when arguing against generic pro-lifers, but that's another topic altogether.

Unless we decide to turn this into one of those threads.

Whack-a-Conservative threads ftw

[BrownEye007]

2nd amendment nuts are fun to mess with. When they argue that not a single gun should be placed under restriction (a specialized group of 2nd amendment nuts, that is) by the government, I like to go off the deep end and say that they're sell-outs to government control for not being activists for the legalization of all *arms* and only focusing on *guns*. I take a parallel and equally nutty stance when arguing against generic pro-lifers, but that's another topic altogether.

Unless we decide to turn this into one of those threads.

Whack-a-Conservative threads ftw
2nd amendment "nuts" aren't the ones trying to take freedom away from people like you and the pro lifers.

[travelingman]

take freedom away

In what way is my freedom being taken away (and through what actions)? I could argue all day that the set of freedoms you prefer is itself limited and thus an infringement on my idea of freedom. But then you would come across as inconsistent, and that would be an unfavorable situation for you to be strapped into.

[IamRAMBO24]

2nd amendment nuts are fun to mess with. When they argue that not a single gun should be placed under restriction (a specialized group of 2nd amendment nuts, that is) by the government, I like to go off the deep end and say that they're sell-outs to government control for not being activists for the legalization of all *arms* and only focusing on *guns*. I take a parallel and equally nutty stance when arguing against generic pro-lifers, but that's another topic altogether.

Unless we decide to turn this into one of those threads.

Whack-a-Conservative threads ftw

Wow you are pathetic: no wonder you are one of my biggest troll.

You can't argue against the founding fathers pure and simple. They are so f*ckin' smart, they predicted our democracy would be open to a tyrannical government, so they set freedom of speech (strongest freedom to fight tyranny), and then set the right to bear arms as the second amendment to protect that freedom of speech. Without the right to bear arms, you wouldn't have the right to speak your mind in the first place..

Study your constitution dumbsh*t and stop being so brainwashed by all this bullsh*t propaganda you have been lead to believe since pre K school. Thanks.

[IamRAMBO24]

Just how many drones and trained military personnel will you take out with your gun once the government takes over?

I'm guessing 0.

There's no infrastructure for you dummies fighting back, it'll just be a bunch of morons fighting alone. The government would systematically crush all of you. You aren't defending yourself from shit.

Logical fallacy: hypothetical.

Seriously who gives a f*ck if we can fight off drones? Just the thought of those bearing arms will change the discourse in political direction should be enough for any sane citizen to support it. The main purpose of the 2nd amendment is to tell a tyrannical government they should think twice before they take away our freedom of speech, and no matter how much propaganda they multilate to convince the mass liberal population this right is ALLZ SO EVILZ! it doesn't deviate from the fact the right to bear arms is essential to our protection of free speech. Think about the time when a state followed Hitler and gave up their power to defend themselves; we should applause it instead of condemning it.

I doubt you're smarter than the founding fathers, so stop acting like you are.

[BrownEye007]

In what way is my freedom being taken away (and through what actions)? I could argue all day that the set of freedoms you prefer is itself limited and thus an infringement on my idea of freedom. But then you would come across as inconsistent, and that would be an unfavorable situation for you to be strapped into.

Freedom: exemption from external control, interference, regulation, etc.

If you put a restriction on certain guns you are interfering with my current freedom to own those weapons. Just like pro lifers want to take away the freedom women in the U.S. currently have to get abortions. People that are pro-guns aren't telling people that they have to own a gun but they want people to have the right to. Pro-choice people don't go around telling others they have to get abortions. Pro-lifers and anti-gun people are going around trying to impose their will on others. Or you could say they're trying to place an external control on others. Pretty simple really.

[travelingman]

they predicted our democracy was open with a tyrannical government, so they set freedom of speech (strongest freedom to fight tyranny), and then set the right to bare arms as the second amendment to protect that freedom of speech. Without the right to bare arms, you wouldn't have the right to speak your mind pure and simple.

You do realize that we do not live in a democracy, correct (of course you didn't realize that, but that's fine, you are learning after all)? We live in a...wait for it...

FEDERAL http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalism

PRESIDENTIAL http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidential_system

CONSTITUTIONAL see below

REPUBLIC
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_republic#Constitutional_republic

(I bolded the words that you should study and retain in your memory when venturing into discussions about topics such as U.S. History or American Civics)

Now, that's not to say that we do not have some forms of democratic institutions in our government, but we do not live in a democracy. You mentioned the "founding fathers", but if you look at the writings of James Madison (he was a founding father and a VERY important framer of the Constitution, but he was also the man who introduced the first ten amendments to the Constitution that are referred to as the "Bill of Rights"), you see that he spoke against democracy as the main form of government in favor of a republican system. Now whenever you get into a heated conversation with someone who claims the U.S. is a democracy or was one and because of President _________ or Congressional leaders ____________ it is no longer, you can pull these facts right out of your hat and set them straight!

Also, the second amendment mentions:

"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms..."

You mentioned the right to "bare arms" a few times, so I'm fairly certain this was no typo. You see, the word "bare" is not synonymous with "bear", sadly.
"Bare" means:

"1. not clothed or covered
2. without addition, basic and simple"

"Bear" (when used as a verb, which it is in this text) means:

"1. carry
2. support"

Now, you see that the first definition surely could not have been what the original text would have meant! Talk about original intent! The second definition is much more fitting, and an understanding of what the word "bear" means (as a verb, also how it is spelled) is beneficial to our understanding of this constitutional text as a whole.

Also, for some reason you seem to paint me as someone who is against the right to *bear* arms. Rather, I am in support of limitations of that right, just as I am in support of limited free speech (which is the standard we have as citizens of the United States). If you have any further questions regarding American History, how our government works, or how this big confusing world functions from day-to-day, just send me a message and I'll be glad to help out.

[travelingman]

anti-gun people

The fact that you refer to people who favor limitations of the ability to own guns as "anti-gun" reveals much of your bias. Should I be able to own any weapon I wish? Should I be able to publicly slander another person and face no legal repercussions? Should I be able to issue death threats to any given person without being issued a legal penalty?

[travelingman]

I doubt you're smarter than the founding fathers, so stop acting like you are.

Logical fallacy: Appeal to authority

Get yourself together hamburger philosopher, you're slipping.

[IamRAMBO24]

Skip the hogwash and go back to my premise:

1. If you strip away the right to bear arms, you are stripping freedom of speech.

2. The founding fathers had the foresight to protect the 1st amendment, so they knew the 2nd amendment was the only means the people had to protect that right.

If you don't believe the people should have this right, then you are essentially admitting they should not have the first right. Correct? Both go hand in hand. Tell me how I am wrong in this.

[IamRAMBO24]

Logical fallacy: Appeal to authority

Get yourself together hamburger philosopher, you're slipping.

Appeal to authority is not a logical fallacy in this instance because the foundation is based on the philosophies of the founding fathers. You can't get any better than the constitution, thus it's ok to appeal to their ideas. It is only a logical fallacy when the authority is stupid and don't know what the f*ck they are talking about.

[travelingman]

Wow wrong again. clearly the founding fathers were thinking something more along the lines of this
http:////www.google.com/search?q=write+to+bear+arms&client=firefox-a&hs=IHa&rls=org.*******:en-US:official&channel=sb&tbm=isch&source=lnms&sa=X&ei=wFwMU4T7KaXhyQHyroG4Dg&ved=0CAgQ_AUoAg&biw=1366&bih=664#facrc=_&imgdii=_&imgrc=pA-9vbM_aFnD1M%253A%3BdEhcLKdvnxkREM%3Bhttp%253A%252F %252Fs3.amazonaws.com%252Frapgenius%252F1307736394 _Bear-Arms-a-Right.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Frapgenius.com%252F2 31095%252FLupe-fiasco-cold-world%252FI-bare-arms-crack-my-paws-and-write%3B260%3B193

You typed in "write to bear arms"

WRITE

WRITE

It says "arms" in the text. If you can argue that they only meant guns because that would have been the main form of militia weaponry from their time(muskets/rifles), then you must also understand that they had no way of conceiving the types of guns that would develop over the next 200+ years and spread across the country, so it would not be safe to assume that they would have included what they did not know of in the amendment.

[BrownEye007]

The fact that you refer to people who favor limitations of the ability to own guns as "anti-gun" reveals much of your bias. Should I be able to own any weapon I wish? Should I be able to publicly slander another person and face no legal repercussions? Should I be able to issue death threats to any given person without being issued a legal penalty?
As far as I'm concerned as long as it's not a bomb or a chemical weapon yes. Why are those special you ask? Because the only purpose of weapons like those is to kill people. Guns can be used in self defense, to hunt, have fun, etc. As far as those other questions you asked go I say no. But issuing death threats and slandering publicly slandering people actually effects them. Me owning a gun on the other hand does not.

[travelingman]

Skip the hogwash and go back to my premise:

1. If you strip away the right to bear arms, you are stripping freedom of speech.

2. The founding fathers had the foresight to protect the 1st amendment, so they knew the 2nd amendment was the only means the people had to protect that right.

If you don't believe the people should have this right, then you are essentially admitting they should not have the first right. Correct? Both go hand in hand. Tell me how I am wrong in this.

1. I am not in favor of stripping away that right, as I have stated. I am in favor of limiting it, not destroying it (this is the part where you tell me they are on in the same, I assume).

2. I would argue that the 2nd amendment is more about favoring militias over a standing army in a free state, which Madison had mentioned.

As for the last paragraph, I did not say I believe they should not have this right.

[BrownEye007]

You typed in "write to bear arms"

WRITE

WRITE

It says "arms" in the text. If you can argue that they only meant guns because that would have been the main form of militia weaponry from their time(muskets/rifles), then you must also understand that they had no way of conceiving the types of guns that would develop over the next 200+ years and spread across the country, so it would not be safe to assume that they would have included what they did not know of in the amendment.
So you're calling me out on using the wrong version of a word in my google image search? I know the difference between right and write but even if I didn't who cares? It has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. Especially since it wasn't even in my post it was a freaking google search.

[travelingman]

Appeal to authority is not a logical fallacy in this instance because the foundation is based on the philosophies of the founding fathers. You can't get any better than the constitution, thus it's ok to appeal to their ideas. It is only a logical fallacy when the authority is stupid and don't know what the f*ck they are talking about.

Actually, it still applies in this case. You were basing much of your reasoning on the esteem of a source rather than the source's content. You should have mentioned something like "I found the founding fathers' philosophical beliefs more sound and agreeable than your own when I compared the two sets" rather than what you posted. It didn't help that you worded it as "I doubt you're smarter than the founding fathers". Should've specified instead of using a broad word like "smarter", which could mean plenty of unintended things.

[IamRAMBO24]

1. I am not in favor of stripping away that right, as I have stated. I am in favor of limiting it, not destroying it (this is the part where you tell me they are on in the same, I assume).

2. I would argue that the 2nd amendment is more about favoring militias over a standing army in a free state, which Madison had mentioned.

As for the last paragraph, I did not say I believe they should not have this right.

And why would you want to limit it? Do you believe it will lead to school shootings and terrorist acts? This perception of gun ownership has been misconstrued and I'm sure you will support regulations on it without understanding it is nothing more than a fallacious argument to destroy the 2nd amendment.

Honestly, I can care less if someone has an AK-47 and a missile launcher; I'm sure that person won't be shooting up a school if they don't have psychological problems.

The problem is prob psychological and has nothing to do with owning a gun, and if that person is a mental case, it goes to reason we should not be giving that person a gun in the first place, so why not just say mentally crazy should not have guns and not attack normal abiding citizens exercising their right to protect themselves? This is the greatest misconception of you liberal nerds. Stop s*cking so much d*ck (like Kevnyc) and look at the facts for what it is. Thanks. GUNS DON'T KILL PEOPLE, PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE. FACT. Stop destroying the constitution with your bullsh*t logic. Please.

[travelingman]

So you're calling me out on using the wrong version of a word in my google image search? I know the difference between right and write but even if I didn't who cares? It has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. Especially since it wasn't even in my post it was a freaking google search.

A bit fussbudgety, I admit, but I couldn't help but point it out after that Rambo character several times mentioned our "right to bare arms".

[dr.hee]

Appeal to authority is not a logical fallacy in this instance because the foundation is based on the philosophies of the founding fathers. You can't get any better than the constitution, thus it's ok to appeal to their ideas. It is only a logical fallacy when the authority is stupid and don't know what the f*ck they are talking about.

So you didn't even have philosophy 101 at McDonald's? I am disappoint. I could of swear your betterer then that.

[IamRAMBO24]

A bit fussbudgety, I admit, but I couldn't help but point it out after that Rambo character several times mentioned our "right to bare arms".

Giving up already travelman?

As expected.

[IamRAMBO24]

So you didn't even have philosophy 101 at McDonald's? I am disappoint. I could of swear your betterer then that.

My fav troll .. ofc making his presence known just to play off of my popularity and nothing more.

Keep trolling.

You're doing me a favor. Thanks.

[travelingman]

And why would you want to limit it? Do you believe it will lead to school shootings and terrorist acts? This perception of gun ownership has been misconstrued and I'm sure you will support regulations on it without understanding it is nothing more than a fallacious argument to destroy the 2nd amendment.

Honestly, I can care less if someone has an AK-47 and a missile launcher; I'm sure that person won't be shooting up a school if they don't have psychological problems.

The problem is prob psychological and has nothing to do with owning a gun. This is the greatest misconception of you liberal nerds. Stop s*cking so much d*ck (like Kevnyc) and look at the facts for what it is. Thanks. GUNS DON'T KIL.L PEOPLE, PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE. FACT. Stop destroying the constitution with your bullsh*t logic. Please.

By paragraph:

1) I believe limiting it is the best option. I never mentioned how limited (you understand that our laws as of now limit the right to bear arms, no?), but I've mentioned that I do not believe it should be an unlimited freedom. Regulations are not killing the second amendment, either. As for my rationale, I believe some limitations offer a better barrier for safety and security than giving absolute freedom to own any kind of weapon.

2) That seems like such a safe assumption to make...

3) Typical end-of-the-post rant that you consistently deliver without disappointment. The "sucking so much dick" portion was a nice touch. The lack of subject/verb agreement with the words "facts" and "is" was also a good addition. Oh, and the "you liberal nerds" bit was strong. It made me feel as if I was thrown into a shoebox with all of the other filthy rationale-minded people of this country (or world). You are right that guns do not kill people, however I must say they certainly can help attain that objective.

[travelingman]

Giving up already travelman?

As expected.

No, just being my persnickety self. I won't point out that you misspelled my account name because that could just be a way of shortening my name for brevity's sake as I do with your name. I am fine with this.

[IamRAMBO24]

1. How is owning a gun dangerous in and of itself? The fact you want to limit it means somewhere in your mind you think the act of ownership will lead to violence which is a fallacious way of thinking.

2. This line of thinking is wrong. Period. It is a problem of psychlogy and not gun ownership. Don't correlate the two.

You are wrong. I have clearly pointed out the fallacy in your thinking.

[travelingman]

1. How is owning a gun dangerous in and of itself? The fact you want to limit it means somewhere in your mind you think the act of ownership will lead to violence which is a fallacious way of thinking.

2. This line of thinking is wrong. Period. It is a problem of psychlogy and not gun ownership. Don't correlate the two.

You are wrong. I have clearly pointed out the fallacy in your thinking.

Owning a gun is not dangerous in and of itself. However, you seem to operate under the (not so) safe thinking that just because nothing guarantees that a gun owner will violate laws with said gun(s) that no gun owner will violate laws. In practicality, it is safe to assume that some will break laws. The act of ownership leads to violence in some cases, but obviously not every case (I feel that even though this thought has been consistently shown in my responses thus far that I must again state it). By the way, what do you think of the second amendment entailing all sorts of weapons?

[IamRAMBO24]

Owning a gun is not dangerous in and of itself. However, you seem to operate under the (not so) safe thinking that just because nothing guarantees that a gun owner will violate laws with said gun(s) that no gun owner will violate laws. In practicality, it is safe to assume that some will break laws. The act of ownership leads to violence in some cases, but obviously not every case (I feel that even though this thought has been consistently shown in my responses thus far that I must again state it). By the way, what do you think of the second amendment entailing all sorts of weapons?

1. Act of ownership does not lead to violence. I am firm in this premise considering there are more gun owners with guns protecting their family and property than the ones committing crimes from obtaining weapons illegally. Why the f*ck would you advocate taking the guns away from the legal owners merely trying to man up and protect their families? I can understand you advocating against the crazies and criminals, but wtf? Taking the guns from the man trying to protect himself and his family from those criminals?

2. Sorry I don't support that bullsh*t standpoint. You're stupid. Period. That's like stripping the western powers of all weapons in world war 2. A bold analogy, but it is accurate in a sense, considering most gun owners aren't all crazies and only owning a gun for protection.

[travelingman]

1. Act of ownership does not lead to violence. I am firm in this premise considering there are more gun owners with guns protecting their family and property than the ones committing crimes from obtaining weapons illegally. Why the f*ck would you advocate taking the guns away from the legal owners merely trying to man up and protect their families? I can understand you advocating against the crazies and criminals, but wtf? Taking the guns from the man trying to protect himself and his family from those criminals?

2. Sorry I don't support that bullsh*t standpoint. You're stupid. Period. That's like stripping the western powers of all weapons in world war 2. A bold analogy, it it is accurate in a sense.

You keep saying that I want to take their guns away...yet I have not even elaborated to what extent I think the right to bear arms should be limited. You're painting me into something you want to see. The loony conservative's (as opposed to your moderate brethren) caricature of a terror-minded liberal who is completely aloof from reality. The problem is, you focus your counterarguments on that effigy you keep picturing in your head rather than the character my points create my persona out of. I swear you are looking over my shoulder when you shoot these typical arguments into online existence. There's a lot of misguided emotion in that first paragraph...along with a lot of misrepresentation of my views...

[ballup]

I find the topic of gun control difficult to find a practical middle ground. Background checks and restrictions for certain degrees of criminals should be maintained and standardized at least. Then comes the issue of making sure that those who own guns are responsible, which means more taxes. Drawing the lines on which guns should be available for the public is also difficult as I have been told that there is no defined criteria which could easily separate the kinds of guns available to the public.

[dude77]

peoples' lives have been saved by guns in home invasions ..

one example recently in detroit .. 3 guys broke in through the front door .. no knocking .. no nothing .. this is our house now and we're going in .. one of them armed .. totally brazen .. no fks given .. mom and daughter inside .. mom had a rifle and shot at them .. they turned around and went right back out and took off .. what do you think would've happened to mommy and her kid had she not been armed ? .. I think some of you have fantasies of getting raped and murdered

[BrownEye007]

You keep saying that I want to take their guns away...yet I have not even elaborated to what extent I think the right to bear arms should be limited. You're painting me into something you want to see. The loony conservative's (as opposed to your moderate brethren) caricature of a terror-minded liberal who is completely aloof from reality. The problem is, you focus your counterarguments on that effigy you keep picturing in your head rather than the character my points create my persona out of. I swear you are looking over my shoulder when you shoot these typical arguments into online existence. There's a lot of misguided emotion in that first paragraph...along with a lot of misrepresentation of my views...
I don't care what extent you would like to limit it to I don't want it to be limited at all. I'm fine with background checks but I wouldn't be fine with an assault weapons ban. I don't go shooting often but when I do rifles are my favorite guns to use. I'm not going around killing people with them. Even if I was going to I would probably use a pistol. Since, ya know, they're easily concealable. I don't feel like looking it up at the moment but I'm pretty sure handguns are responsible for a large majority of shootings in the U.S.

[travelingman]

I don't care what extent you would like to limit it to I don't want it to be limited at all. I'm fine with background checks but I wouldn't be fine with an assault weapons ban. I don't go shooting often but when I do rifles are my favorite guns to use. I'm not going around killing people with them. Even if I was going to I would probably use a pistol. Since, ya know, they're easily concealable. I don't feel like looking it up at the moment but I'm pretty sure handguns are responsible for a large majority of shootings in the U.S.

So, as far as arms go, you say the only things you would oppose legalization of are bombs and chemical weapons (IIRC)?

[BrownEye007]

So, as far as arms go, you say the only things you would oppose legalization of are bombs and chemical weapons (IIRC)?
Although I don't believe it necessary I suppose I wouldn't mind it being expanded to explosives in general too. I don't think there should be a ban on any guns or blades though. I'm also fine with silencers being illegal.

[IamRAMBO24]

You see nothing hypothetical about, "We need guns because that way we can fight off the government"? How many modern US governments have the citizens destroyed? Get a f*cking clue.

Guns have nothing to do with free speech, that's why they're two separate amendments you jag.

You say I'm not smarter than a founding father when I didn't claim to be. Shit changes in 200+ years. You're the one taking them at their word and are unwilling to think about change. That sounds stupid to me.

For an uneducated guy I seem to know the constitution more than you do.

1. The most important amendment is the first one: that is why you have the freedom to post on ISH and say whatever you want.

2. With this freedom you will have repercussions when you choose to criticize the government, hence why the 2nd amendment is the right to protect yourself when government tells you to shut the f*ck up.

You take away the 2nd, you lose the 1st. Simple logic.

[travelingman]

For an uneducated guy I seem to know the constitution more than you do.

1. The most important amendment is the first one: that is why you have the freedom to post on ISH and say whatever you want.

2. With this freedom you will have repercussions when you choose to criticize the government, hence why the 2nd amendment is the right to protect yourself when government tells you to shut the f*ck up.

You take away the 2nd, you lose the 1st. Simple logic.

For some reason you keep asserting the bolded as the framers' original intent (or as some offshoot of it), but if you studied the background to the founding of republic (Remember! Federal Presidential Constitutional Republic, not a democracy), you would realize that this amendment was crafted as a means to support the continuation of the state, NOT for the purpose of protecting the citizens from some "governmental tyranny" or however you see it. Madison wrote that the militia was the preferable defense for a free state over a standing army. Hamilton said that the militia's best uses would be fighting a foreign invader or quelling an insurrection (the purpose of the militia being to PROTECT the government). It's funny how contradictory much of the popular thought of today regarding the meaning of the second amendment runs to the original intent of the founding fathers. Their belief was that change should be allowed to come about, just not radical abrupt change that insurrections or rebellions bring. This is partially the reason why Representatives are elected to two-year terms and Senators to six-year terms.

[ballup]

Drones? That's just a waste. You can easily take out many malitia with just mortars.

[MavsSuperFan]

Im not a gun nut, but I believe in the constitution.

The second amendment is clear. the founding fathers talked about the right to bear arms.

They never said muskets. they said arms. They knew the definition of arms changed over time. At one time it was spears and swords, later it became muskets. had the founding fathers wanted to limit US citizens to muskets, I think they would have said so. Instead they said arms, which generally refers to infantry level weaponry. In modern times that would be assault rifles like AR15s.

In fact Jefferson argued for the need for militias to be able to counter the federal government. to act as a hedge against the tyranny of the federal government. Jefferson does not describe this as a privilege. He describes this as a right, implying that the government is responsible for providing the means for which US citizens could meet federal troops on an even basis on a battlefield. Obviously with as powerful and advanced as the US military has become that would be impractical.

If we want to ban assault weapons or restrict access to guns, it is my firm belief that a constitutional amendment is required or a constitutional convention. Passing a bill through congress is insufficient as the 2nd amendment is one of the 27 amendments, which are the supreme laws of the land.

Edit: I think the second amendment is flawed, but it still is an amendment, and would need another amendment to counter it, a law is not enough and would be unconstitutional.

[KeylessEntry]

Im not a gun nut, but I believe in the constitution.

The second amendment is clear. the founding fathers talked about the right to bear arms.

They never said muskets. they said arms. They knew the definition of arms changed over time. At one time it was spears and swords, later it became muskets. had the founding fathers wanted to limit US citizens to muskets, I think they would have said so. Instead they said arms, which generally refers to infantry level weaponry. In modern times that would be assault rifles like AR15s.

In fact Jefferson argued for the need for militias to be able to counter the federal government. to act as a hedge against the tyranny of the federal government. Jefferson does not describe this as a privilege. He describes this as a right, implying that the government is responsible for providing the means for which US citizens could meet federal troops on an even basis on a battlefield. Obviously with as powerful and advanced as the US military has become that would be impractical.

If we want to ban assault weapons or restrict access to guns, it is my firm belief that a constitutional amendment is required or a constitutional convention. Passing a bill through congress is insufficient as the 2nd amendment is one of the 27 amendments, which are the supreme laws of the land.

A militia armed with ar15s is not going to do jack shit to counter a military equipped with modern tanks and predator drones.

A citizen would need something like an aircraft carrier if they wanted a chance of actually defending against tyranny of the federal government.

[travelingman]

In fact Jefferson argued for the need for militias to be able to counter the federal government. to act as a hedge against the tyranny of the federal government.

What quote(s) are you referring to?

[IamRAMBO24]

Travelingman,

I was going to reply to you, but then I read this:


Im not a gun nut, but I believe in the constitution.

The second amendment is clear. the founding fathers talked about the right to bear arms.

They never said muskets. they said arms. They knew the definition of arms changed over time. At one time it was spears and swords, later it became muskets. had the founding fathers wanted to limit US citizens to muskets, I think they would have said so. Instead they said arms, which generally refers to infantry level weaponry. In modern times that would be assault rifles like AR15s.

In fact Jefferson argued for the need for militias to be able to counter the federal government. to act as a hedge against the tyranny of the federal government. Jefferson does not describe this as a privilege. He describes this as a right, implying that the government is responsible for providing the means for which US citizens could meet federal troops on an even basis on a battlefield. Obviously with as powerful and advanced as the US military has become that would be impractical.

If we want to ban assault weapons or restrict access to guns, it is my firm belief that a constitutional amendment is required or a constitutional convention. Passing a bill through congress is insufficient as the 2nd amendment is one of the 27 amendments, which are the supreme laws of the land.

[travelingman]

The second amendment is clear. the founding fathers talked about the right to bear arms.


It's important to keep in mind the the role the prefatory clause plays in the second amendment.

[travelingman]

They knew the definition of arms changed over time.

But you cannot sit here and argue they had any idea of the extent to which arms would develop in terms of either efficiency or destructive power. All of this is worthless conjecture, however, because your argument cannot even pass the preliminary debacle of understanding the importance of the militia in the meaning of the second amendment.

[BrownEye007]

But you cannot sit here and argue they had any idea of the extent to which arms would develop in terms of either efficiency or destructive power. All of this is worthless conjecture, however, because your argument cannot even pass the preliminary debacle of understanding the importance of the militia in the meaning of the second amendment.
We don't have to the second amendment is pretty clear. I don't get why people wanna act like it could mean something besides what it very obviously states. The only thing it could possibly mean besides people having the right to own weapons is the right of people to own literal bear arms. I don't think it's the latter. If you want to make a law in conflict with the second amendment you should have to prove the founding father meant otherwise.

[G-train]

Im not a gun nut, but I believe in the constitution.

The second amendment is clear. the founding fathers talked about the right to bear arms.

They never said muskets. they said arms. They knew the definition of arms changed over time. At one time it was spears and swords, later it became muskets. had the founding fathers wanted to limit US citizens to muskets, I think they would have said so. Instead they said arms, which generally refers to infantry level weaponry. In modern times that would be assault rifles like AR15s.

In fact Jefferson argued for the need for militias to be able to counter the federal government. to act as a hedge against the tyranny of the federal government. Jefferson does not describe this as a privilege. He describes this as a right, implying that the government is responsible for providing the means for which US citizens could meet federal troops on an even basis on a battlefield. Obviously with as powerful and advanced as the US military has become that would be impractical.

If we want to ban assault weapons or restrict access to guns, it is my firm belief that a constitutional amendment is required or a constitutional convention. Passing a bill through congress is insufficient as the 2nd amendment is one of the 27 amendments, which are the supreme laws of the land.

Edit: I think the second amendment is flawed, but it still is an amendment, and would need another amendment to counter it, a law is not enough and would be unconstitutional.

Sounds clear to me.

But what's the solution to the gun culture problem in parts of the US?

[LBJ 23]

Just for comparison if someone's interested to read about weapon laws in one specific country in central Europe this is my post from another forum.

As far as gun laws are concerned, we are able to obtain guns and handguns only for hunting and sporting purposes. We have to pass mental tests, exams of the safe handling of weapons and our criminal record has to be clean in order to purchase a weapon.

Marksmen are stricly allowed to use guns and handguns only on the shooting range while hunters can use guns for hunting purposes and handguns only for stalking wounded dangerous animals (like big male hogs for example) and for the last shot in the neck or head area of the smaller game like deer, that's when 22.lr usually comes into play.